LT Rob Lyon, serving in IraqI appreciate the support we have been getting here in Iraq. Knowing that folks like you are out there, not just for the support, but to provide much needed diversion, is greatly appreciated.

Wednesday, 29 March 2006

The Army is looking at off-the-shelf vehicles

While the Army continues to spend millions of dollars to reinforce the
armor on its humvees and wheeled vehicles seeing action in Iraq,
officials from several Army organizations recently reviewed 13
off-the-shelf vehicles that could possibly provide soldiers better
protection from roadside bombs and land mines.

The
vehicles, and two armored gun boxes, were assessed during a vehicle and
technology demonstration held from Feb. 24 to March 6 at Ft. Knox, KY.
The event was held to support the Army’s Comprehensive Force Protection
Initiative, which is working to identify gaps and prescribe changes to
protect soldiers and convoys from threats such as improvised explosive
devices.

Maj. Gen. Robert Williams, Fort Knox Commanding
General, told Inside the Army March 6 that the demonstration was to
showcase platform capabilities that could be available today if the
Army decided it wanted to improve some of its capabilities.

Thanks to "fm" for linking this in a comment to the previous A-C-E post, in which I was suggesting the Army look at currently avaialable vehicles as an interim replacement for the Humvee. Looks like at least one person in the Big Green has similar thoughts.

MG Williams is to be commended, but like he says:

“Whether or not the Army decides there’s a
requirement here is not determined at this point. And
whether or not this goes into an acquisition process has not been
determined.”

“Upfront,
this demonstration clearly will allow decision makers to view what
capabilities are available today, [in] off-the-shelf technology, from a
whole host of vendors that could be used [in] what I call near to
midterm operations on the Global War on Terror,” he said.

Assessments
from the event, as well as other evaluations from the force protection
study, will be briefed to Gen. William Wallace, commander of the
Training and Doctrine Command, sometime early this week, Williams said.

The
13 vehicles shown at the demonstration were evaluated for four
potential requirements: reconnaissance and surveillance; convoy
security; improvised explosive devices, mine detection and
neutralization; and, infantry carriers. The systems also were evaluated
for survivability, lethality and mobility.

To judge mobility,
the vehicles completed an off-road course “which really would put any
vehicle to task like we would with any system that we might consider
looking at for future procurement,” Williams said.

The vehicles
also went through an urban warfighting scenario which had several IEDs
in place. The vehicles had to combat “typical” urban problems, such as
automobiles, a vertical wall and heavy fence lines, the two-star said.

“They
were trying to negotiate some of the obstacles that you would find in a
urban setting with a thinking and tough enemy,” he said. “They’d go
over the obstacle and unfortunately the obstacle would break the
vehicle, to be quite candid.”

For lethality, the demonstration
had a live-fire event to determine each vehicle’s ability to engage
targets at various ranges. Williams said one of the things the Army
officials were interested in determining was the visibility out of
these vehicles. “In an urban setting, it’s important soldiers [are]
able to see,” he said.

Survivability data was primarily taken
from the individual vendor and no live-fire testing on the vehicle was
conducted, Williams said. “Whether or not we go forward and look at
these vehicles to confirm or deny the vendor data on what any given
vehicle could survive against is yet to be determined,” he continued.

Vehicles
first started out with a “static demonstration” where data was taken
from the vendors, and measurements, such as stopping distance at
different speeds to how short a turning radius the vehicles have, were
conducted, Williams said.

“As an example, it’s important in an
urban setting that a vehicle be able to turn around in a fairly easy
manner on a two-lane road,” the two-star said.

The next phase of
the demonstration involved “safety certification of the vehicles,”
Williams said. “I had safety experts here and at the appropriate time,
I signed off on safety certification of the vehicles and then we
trained soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division to operate them.”

Along
with the 13 vehicles, two armored gun boxes were also looked at. Gun
boxes are located in the back of a truck and provide armor protection
to soldiers manning machine guns, he said.

A sources sought
notice, posted Dec. 22, 2005, on the Federal Business Opportunities Web
site, stated that the Army needs three types of vehicles, an 11-person
Infantry Carrier, a six-person Reconnaissance, Surveillance Target
Acquisition vehicle and a convoy protection-IED defeat vehicle.

Williams
said there is no breakdown of which of the 13 vehicles belonged in what
category because some vehicles can fit in more than one category.

The
two-star also stressed that the demonstration is not part of an
acquisition plan. The goal of the event was to examine various
platforms and gather data. “Whether or not the Army decides there’s a
requirement here is not determined at this point,” he said. “And
whether or not this goes into an acquisition process has not been
determined.”

The following companies and their particular systems participated in the demonstration:

» Hummer Deathtraps Suck: Take 2 from Winds of Change.NET
HMMWV, IEDed(click to view full) Monday Winds of War team member Jeff of Peace Like a River notes combat casualties since January 7, 2006, where Humvees were specified as being involved. Note how many involve... [Read More]

Tracked on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 at 16:57

» Hummer Deathtraps Suck from Winds of Change.NET
HMMWV, IEDed(click to view full) Over at DID, I note that the US military has just begun fielding a new variant of the HMMWV jeep: the M1151 and M1152. Think of them as Hummer v2.1.... [Read More]

Tracked on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 at 16:59

Comments

While the Army continues to spend millions of dollars to reinforce the
armor on its humvees and wheeled vehicles seeing action in Iraq,
officials from several Army organizations recently reviewed 13
off-the-shelf vehicles that could possibly provide soldiers better
protection from roadside bombs and land mines.

The
vehicles, and two armored gun boxes, were assessed during a vehicle and
technology demonstration held from Feb. 24 to March 6 at Ft. Knox, KY.
The event was held to support the Army’s Comprehensive Force Protection
Initiative, which is working to identify gaps and prescribe changes to
protect soldiers and convoys from threats such as improvised explosive
devices.

Maj. Gen. Robert Williams, Fort Knox Commanding
General, told Inside the Army March 6 that the demonstration was to
showcase platform capabilities that could be available today if the
Army decided it wanted to improve some of its capabilities.

Thanks to "fm" for linking this in a comment to the previous A-C-E post, in which I was suggesting the Army look at currently avaialable vehicles as an interim replacement for the Humvee. Looks like at least one person in the Big Green has similar thoughts.

MG Williams is to be commended, but like he says:

“Whether or not the Army decides there’s a
requirement here is not determined at this point. And
whether or not this goes into an acquisition process has not been
determined.”